ORDER :

At the outset, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General, invited our attention to the order dated 28.07.2008 which records that since respondent No. 1 had filed an affidavit to the effect that he has given up the claim of seeking any retiral benefits as Chairman of Bihar Public Service Commission and his term has also come to an end, the Reference insofar as respondent No. 1 is concerned has become infructuous. As regards respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the order records that proceedings of Reference may continue.

2. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General, submits that the term of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has also come to end somewhere in 2008 and, therefore, the Reference against them has also become infructuous.

3. Mr. Anshuman Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, however, submits that the Reference has not become infructuous and is alive as against these respondents because the question of retiral benefits and emoluments during the suspension period would be dependent on the report that may be sent by this Court to the President.

4. In Special Reference No. 1 of 1983, (1990) 4 SCC 262 under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India decided on August 3, 1990, a 2-Judge Bench of this Court in para 8 of the Report (pages 267 to 269) observed as follows :-

"8. Sri R.N. Mittal next contended that the reference must be treated to have become infructuous and need not be answered. As provided in Article 316(2), the tenure of office of a Member of a Public Service Commission is six years (subject to reduction of the period in case of the Member reaching the age of superannuation earlier, which is not the case here). The term of office of Sri Saini was to expire in May, 1986. The contention of Sri Mittal is that since his tenure expired in 1986, Sri Saini cannot now be removed from his office and it is, therefore, futile to examine the evidence recorded in the case in pursuance of the earlier order of this Court, and to record a finding on the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made against him. Referring to the provisions of Article 316, dealing with the appointment and term of office of Members, the learned counsel emphasised the fact that the period of six years has been rigidly fixed making it clear that the period cannot be extended and the Member on the expiration of his term would be ineligible for re-appointment. Reliance was placed on several decisions dealing with disciplinary proceedings against the Government servants, and it was argued that the same principle should be applicable to Members of the Public Service Commissions. Reference was made to the decisions in R.T. Rangachari v. Secretary of State, AIR 1937 P.C. 27; State of Assam and Others v. Padma Ram Borah, AIR 1965 SC 473; Dinesh Chandra Sangrna v. State of Assam and Others, [1978] 1 SCR 607; B.J. Shefat v. State of Gujarat and Others, [1978] 3 SCR 553 and C.L. Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, 1989 Supp. 2 SCC 437. An examination of these decisions would show that the cases depended on the interpretation and effect of the relevant service rules dealing with the conditions of service including provisions in regard to retirement and compulsory retirement. So far the present case is concerned, the conduct of a Member of the Public Service Commission is in question which has been considered important enough to be directly dealt with by the Constitution itself. The efficiency and purity of administration are greatly dependent on the right choice of the candidates to be entrusted with official duty; and to ensure that suitable persons, in whom the public may have full faith are selected, it was considered necessary to have a body with members of integrity, sincerity, and practical wisdom capable of commanding the confidence of the people for examining the merits of the candidates and make available to the appointing authorities their conclusion. Taking into account the possibility of their being subject to pressure, they we